The Union Budget 2025-26 has sparked strong criticism from farmers and agricultural experts, who argue that it largely favors corporate interests while neglecting the needs of those dependent on agriculture. Despite the government positioning agriculture as the “first engine of growth,” many believe the budget lacks substantial provisions to truly support the farming sector.
One of the major concerns raised is the allocation of funds. While the agriculture budget has increased from ₹1.52 lakh crore to ₹1.71 lakh crore, it remains significantly lower than the ₹2.74 lakh crore allocated for the pensions and salaries of central government employees. Given that nearly 50% of India’s population relies on agriculture, the sector’s share of just 3.38% of the total budget is seen as inadequate. Critics argue that such an allocation reflects a deliberate neglect of the agricultural sector.
Experts have pointed out that while new initiatives like the National Mission on Pulses have been introduced, they may not be sufficient to bring meaningful change. Some argue that such initiatives are merely symbolic and do not address the deeper structural issues in agriculture. A substantial budgetary increase of ₹5 lakh crore per year for five years has been suggested as a necessary step to truly transform the sector and support the millions dependent on it.
Additionally, key farmer-centric measures were notably absent from the budget. There was no mention of a legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP), a long-standing demand of the farming community. The Kisan Nidhi Scheme, which provides direct financial assistance to farmers, also failed to receive attention. Many had hoped for provisions ensuring better crop pricing and financial security, but these expectations were not met.
Some experts believe that the proposed Pulses Mission could provide some benefits by reducing market risks and ensuring fair pricing. The government plans to have para-statal agencies engage in contract farming for select pulses, ensuring guaranteed procurement. While this move is seen as a step forward, major agricultural market reforms were missing, leaving many farmers dissatisfied.
Low crop yields remain a pressing issue, and experts argue that bridging the gap will be difficult without strengthening public agricultural extension services. One positive step highlighted in the budget was the increase in the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) limit from ₹3 lakh to ₹5 lakh, which could help farmers involved in high-value sectors like livestock and fisheries. However, farmer leaders have argued that the credit limit should have been raised to at least ₹10 lakh to provide meaningful financial relief.
The lack of measures addressing loan waivers and crop insurance schemes has also drawn criticism. While banks have written off massive corporate loans over the past two years, struggling farmers have not received a similar level of financial support. This disparity has fueled frustration among farming communities, who feel sidelined in favor of large corporations.
The budget’s failure to address employment generation and rural-to-urban migration is another point of contention. Experts and farmer leaders argue that workers’ rights, including secure employment and fair wages, have been overlooked. This omission, they claim, further marginalizes rural populations and deepens economic inequalities.
In response to the budget, farmer unions and labor groups have announced nationwide protests. They plan to burn copies of the budget and demand the withdrawal of what they view as anti-farmer and anti-worker policies. The growing discontent among the farming community suggests that the government’s approach to agricultural policy will continue to face intense scrutiny and opposition in the coming months.
